RinNY

You misunderstand me: my point is there's no sign of Lowe losing backing or being willing to step aside, ergo there is no sign of any realistic alternative. Folk here can talk all they like about terrific potential CEOs that could be hired, but it ain't going to happen unless Lowe is willing to step aside or can be pushed out. Which means it'll take share-buying power, or share-holder persuasion. Do you see that happening? I don't. Moreover, I don't see any real alternative to the fiscal policies and youth/loan/free transfer squad policy being pursued. At best a new CEO might be less obnoxious to those fans who despise Lowe, and might hire a new manager. But again, experience shows you can sign a Harry Redknapp and still get relegated, you can sign a Billy Davies and still lose 6 or 7 games out of 8 or 10 (or whatever excactly it is), as Forest are doing. I'm afraid that until season's end, we are what we are, and we can only hope that Wotte and the players we have can avoid relegation, or (depending how much one hates Lowe) hope for relegation and administration to oust Lowe. I'll take the former, myself, but then I see no reason to hate Lowe.

Speaking as a non-Lowe-luvvie, there are any nuimber of alternatives out there, That has never been at issue. What is at issue that you need an alternative who has the wherewithall to buy out Lowe and/or the shareholders who back him, or has the persuasive ability to get those shareholders to stop backing Lowe and back him instead, and in addition has the proven ability to do a different and BETTER job than Lowe. And time has shown that there are at present no such alternatives out there. As things stand, we are stuck with Lowe, probably at least until the end of the season, and probably for longer if we stay up. And as the financial situation stands, I'm not sure anyone could do a significantly better job than Lowe, as bad as things have been; at best you might get someone who is more popular with the fans. But I've never thought it the Chairman's job to be popular with the fans, myself.

For feck's sake! If either Salz or Davies had the slightest interest in owning/running Saints, they've had years nowe to make their move. If you really want anyone to believe there is someone out there who both can and will oust Lowe, take over, and do a better job, at the very least you have to give a name or names that aren't instantly ludicrous! Forget Salz and Davies, it is never going to happen. At least those who tout Crouch are touting a man who really cares and really would take over if he could.

Your basic assumption is that Lowe is doing a terrible job: you're entitled to that opinion of course, and there's a case to be made for it. But I'm not sure it's true all the same. Yes, the team are doing pretty badly, but that isn't necessarily down to the people running things at board level, nor is it in any way clear that other people running things at board level would produce better results. Because absent major funds, whoever we have at board level can do only one of two things: spend money SFC doesn't have and gamble on success on the field bailing us out, which the Wilde/Hone/Hoos regime tried; or keep costs down to a sustainable level, which Lowe has done. And actually, given the economy and the input from the bank holding the SFC overdraft, only the latter is actually possible. So I really do not believe that any other CEO would do things significantly differently than Lowe. Perhaps you have a case to make against that? Now, there is, it's true, one thing a different CEO might do, and that's have a different manager. Poortvliet did not work out. The jury is still out on Wotte. Many of you insist that if only Pearson had been kept, or if only Lowe had hired Billy Davies, or Ian Dowie, or (fill in your preferred name here) all would be much better at SFC. Maybe; or maybe we'd be even worse off, below Charlton and 8 or 10 points adrift. Nobody knows; but what we do know is that any other manager would have been faced with the same kind of squad (youngsters, loanees and freebies), the same finances, and greater success would not have been guaranteed. Managers who have succeeded at one place fail at another frequently. I don't think trying the Poortvliet/Wotte team was an obviously bad or wrong approach to try, though it has proved so far to be unsuccessful. I don't know, and neither does anyone else, if any other manager or managerial team would have done better. However, what one can say is that the team manager has a much greater impact on how the team does than the CEO, so that changing the manager when the team is doing badly makes sense; but changing the CEO only makes sense if there is a way to make the business perform in a better way. Because the CEO runs the business end. Again, I haven't seen any indication that there is, absent major new funds, an alternative to the business model Lowe is pursuing. Most of the criticism aimed at Lowe falls into two categories: the usual criticism that the board/CEO of every club that performs poorly comes in for, and the particular spite aimed at Lowe because of the personal dislike many at SFC have for him, whether based on class, on his personality, on his manner, or whatever. Since I really don't care whether Lowe is or is not pompous, or arrogant, or upper class, or whatever exactly your beef may be, it comes down to whether there is a better way to manage the club's business. If it's on field performance that's the issue, criticism belongs with manager and players, not CEO.

We are not lucky to have him, nor -- if you bothered to take off your blinkers and read instead of just assuming -- did I suggest anything of the sort. But the situation you describe has not just been brought about by Lowe, it has been coming about for a number of years, for only part of which has Lowe been in charge. I don't buy the "anyone is better than Lowe" argument. Because this "Anyone" will face the same problems of debts, lack of funds, having to operate on a shoe-string with whatever youth players and free veterans we can get, that have put us where we are this season: why not try telling us how YOU think someone would do things better? I know: get an experienced CCC manager, because they ALWAYS succeed, don't they. Except that they don't -- as witness the likes of Pardew and Dowie and plenty of others this season and last. Just getting in a "professional" Managing Director, as some are advocating, suggesting that there are "any number" of good ones who will be lining up for the job, is not necessarily the solution. We tried it, with the Hone/Hoos pair, and it did not work. Saints need a major infusion of cash, to settle the overdraft, finance the stadium debt, and make money available to upgrade the playing staff. When you know where that money can realistically come from, you'll have something worthwhile to impart here. Untill then, all your anti-Lowe claptrap is just venting of spite and farting into the wind. We do not just need Lowe out: in itself, that is pointless. We only need Lowe out if there is genuinely a better alternative out there to replace him. I haven't seen any suggestion that there is, and that's not because Lowe is great, or has stature, or beause I "luv" him or any of the other nonsense. It's because SFC is in deep crap, and it'll take someone/something special to do more and better than is being done now to get us out of it.

Do I want Lowe to stay? In an ideal world, no; but before saying he should definitely go, I'd like to have a much better sense of what the alternative is. Last time I just wanted him out, and the results were not good. This time, I want to be sure we'd be getting someting better, because despite what the Lowe-loathers think, there are worse possibilities, and stability is at least better than change without improvement. Do I think Lowe is best for the club? Best is the wrong term here: he is not best in any ideal sense, but it is quite likely, I'd say, that he is better than the real alternatives that are out there now. If there truly is a better alternative, I'll be delighted to learn about it, because I too would ike to see the end of our current depressing era. Do I like Lowe? Pointless question: I don't know the man and don't particularly expect or even care ever to know him. Do I like his style as chairman may be what is meant: I'm not bothered by it as some are, but I don't actually like it either.

No need to sugest any theory: we were told before the transfer window opened, by those actually running the club and therefore genuinely "in the know", that no players would be sold unless irresistably attractive offers were made. And that is exactly what happened. no players were sold, because no irresistable offers were made. There is no need to theorize about other Chairmen conspiring against us, or waiting for a post administration firesale, or whatever. And btw, running a football club is not like buying goods at Woolies. When you are working to avoid releation, win promotion, or establish a competitive teram, you buy the players you think will help you at the price you can afford to pay as soon as you are able to. Waiting to buy players at "firesale prices" is a sure recipe for disaster! You won't have the players you need, when you need them. So, ok you can say our players aren't good enough at present to command high fees: that is obviously and triviall true, so don't expect much kudos for noticing it. It still remains the case that the doom & gloomers were confidentyly aanticipating a firesale this Januarty (don't know off hand if you were one), and it has not happened. We are fighting to remain solvent and in the CCC: that is from last summer what this season has been about, and we have not yet failed on either front.

That's the lovely thing about conspiracy theorists: when one conspiracy is shown up as wrong, they always have a few back-ups ready to go! *lol* So now Lowe has been foiled in his evil plot to sell off all Saints' assets by conniving other Chairmen, who are waiting for a later firesale. Nice one. And what is option C. when that one doesn't pan out? Btw, can the "Lowe-luvvie" crap: taking a rational, neutral view of things does not equate to "luvving" a man I don't know, don't care to know, and wish had been bought out of SFC years ago. But what did you all expect this year, with all the cost cutting and the enforced youth policy? From the beginning it's been a case of just hoping to avoid relegation and administration: now that we are indeed just fighting to avoid relegation and administration, you are horrified at how things are going? Wise up, do!

So, now that Surman, Lallana, Morgan Schneiderlin and Kelvin Davis have all been sold, Wotton has been shipped out, and we haven't gotten any new faces in, what hope do we have, I wonder? Oh, wait, the transfer window has closed and none of that has happened! Strange, I could have sworn I read that all of that was either certain to happen or a "done deal", depending on the player(s) in question. By people who were "in the know", and who also added the certain knowledge that Lowe & co. are just out to destroy SFC and suck the last penny they can out of the club in doing so. I wonder if any of those making these claims will be posting an apology for getting things so wrong? I doubt it. One thing I've learned reading this forum and its predecessor these past 7 or 8 years, is that the more certain someone here is that something is "bound to happen" or a "done deal", the less likely it is to be true; that none of the self-proclaimed "in the knowers" actually know a damned thing about what's happening, that most posters (with a very few honorable exceptions) are motivated solely by bias, prejudice, and fantasy, or an injudicious mixture thereof. With a few defensive reinforcements (Molyneux, Saeijs, the Hungarian fella), the return of a key loan player (Saga) to help up front, and no significant departures of our own players, I'm almost inclined to some cautious optimism, despite our still very precarious position.

Yeah, and when wilde ousted Lowe, and Lowe offered to sell his shares, lots of people came forweard to buy him out and put money into the club, didn't they .... The truth is, it appears nobody will put money into the club.

It's easy and costs nothing to say that you would put in money if certain conditions are met, which you know won't be met; it's easy and costs nothing to say you think this or that will happen, if something or other happens first. If the local business community are genuinely ready to back Crouch, they know what to do: find a way to put up 4 million quid and call Crouch's bluff to see if he really has the 2 million to put up: do that, and Lowe & Wilde are gone, the club's overdraft can be rertired, and in theory all will look much rosier. I'm not holding my breath on this one though: too many people over the past few years have claimed to be ready to do one thing or another to save the club, and none of it has actually come about. as far as I can see, Doswell is just engaging in the usual wishful thinking, alas.

It depends how you define success. As I see it, the so-called "Dutch experiment" had three goals: to cut costs and save the club from administration; to blood the youngsters and build a team based on our academy players; and to stay in the CCC, avoiding relegation, while aims 1 and 2 were being met. Obviously, we have been blooding the youngsters and building a team, but with very mixed, and too often poor, results at present in spite of some very good play. Obviously we still do not know whether we will manage to avoid either administration or relegation or both. So I don't see how anyone (anyone who isn't blinded by prejudice for or against the Lowe/Wilde axis, that is) can pronounce success or failure at present. What one can say is that after a bright start, things started to look bad under Poortvliet as too many results went the wrong way, and our inability to score goals, especially at home, was killing us. Poortvliet having to go was obviously a partial failure of the "experiment". But the final verdict will not and cannot be given untul season's end: if we are still solvent, still in the CCC, and have the beginnings of a settled side with youngsters establishing themselves, we'll have success. If not, failure. Simple!

Blah, blah, blah. You obviously haven't read the article very carefully, and as too many do, talk out of mere prejudice. Crouch did not say he would wipe out the overdraft: he proposed that all three leading shareholders do so together. If Lowe and Wilde lack the liquid capital to do so, then Crouch's proposal comes to no more than: hey, I'm richer than you, step aside for me. That isn't helpful, unless Crouch is actually rich enough to carry the club's debt on his own, as Lowe and wilde pointed out, and Crouch stated explicitly that he is NOT rich enough to do that. As to this "last pay cheque" business: Wilde has invested a couple of millon into SFC, and seen that investment dwindle to about a third or so of what he put in, so to suggest that all he wants is to wring money out of the club is the height of nonsense! Do you actually have any evidence about what he (or Lowe for that matter) are getting paid? I see no evidence of it. I've seen no evidence that Wilde gets paid anything at all! The trouble with Crouch, is that he seems more interested in grandstanding than anything else. If he really is able to solve Saints' financial problems, it's puzzling that he did not do so before now, and still isn't doing so. He knows what it requires: he has to find, either himself or with allies, 6 million quid to pay off the overdraft. I suggest he should either put up or shut up. As it is, Wilde stands to lose more than any one other shareholder if Saints go into administration, and Lowe's bank balance and business reputation would also take a huge hit. I suggest they are doing what they can to keep the club afloat, out of self-interest if for no other motivation. God knows they get little else out of it but abuse. If only folks could engage in constructive criticism rather than just constantly venting hate ansd spite! Goodness knows this regime is not above some good constructive criticism, but I haven't seen any on this forum!

If Lowe & Wilde were gutless, spineless cowards, they wouldn't be within a thousand miles of SFC. One thing they clearly do have is guts. Mary Corbett was one of those who joined up with Wilde to oust Lowe, and then sat fiddling on the Board, doing nothing, while the execs ousted Wilde and played fast and loose with the club's finances. She may well be a sterling person for all I know, but I think it's clear that her judgement on how to run the club is seriously lacking. See, if you make a reasoned case about Lowe and Wilde, what they have done wrong and why the club would be better off without them (not a hard case to make, by the way), that'd deserve attention. If you had some serious proposal as to how the club should be run, and by whom, that "whom" actually being demonstrably willing and ready, that'd be even more seriously worthy of attention. But when you, and the rest of the mere Lowe-loathers, simply spew obvious spite and bile that is as false as it is spiteful, and offer as alternatives only the likes of the equally flawed Crouch, the fantasist Fulthorpe, the incapable Corbett, or the past it McMenemy (as great a man as he was for us), then you just look absurd and petty and hateful. This kind of thread shows why no-one who isn't intrinsically a biased Lowe-loather can take this whole anti-Lowe campaign seriously, and that what is wrong with SFC is NOT just Lowe (though he's a big part of it): it is Lowe AND Crouch AND Corbett and all you petty hateful spiteful little pseudo-fans whose only care is to pour out bile no matter how it poisons the atmosphere and harms the club and team. At least Lowe and Wilde are trying, however flawed their efforts may be, to put the club right. You are just a hatemonger.

I'm actually not sure why you disagree with what Poortvliet says. Do you deny that Saints dominated the game and had far more scoring chances? In other words, we did play well, we should have won, and victory was denied by the problem that has plagued us all season: an inability to turn dominance of possession and scoring chances into goals. The only player who has scored a reasonable number of goals, McGoldrick, is all the same still an exceedingly wasteful striker, and no other striker or midfielder has stepped up to the plate with meaningful goalscoring contributions. I'm not sure how a different manager is supposed to turn dominance of the ball and of scoring chances into more goals scored, unless by being allowed to bring in (or back) a less wasteful striker. We can only hope that Saganowski will make a difference and/or that McGoldrick will finally start to convert more of his goal scoring opportunities.

1. we play in a lower league than Fulham 2. at Fulham he has been played at RB, we might likely play him at CB, where he has performed very well in the past Need more reasons?

Depends whether you translate it accurately. It just says that there was to be a meeting between Saints & Lupoli's agents this past afternoon; that Lupoli had left Norwich months early, but that Saints were ready to step in & take over his loan; and that his future doesn't lie beside the Arno (the river that flows through Florence). Good move by Saints if it's all true.

Because they have been so much more successful this season have they not? Oh, no they haven't! I guess you must want them for some other reason then. What could it be? What precise form of prejudice is it that makes you prefer three failures to the guy we have, I wonder?

Euell not happy? Well, there's a piece of news that's about as startling as announcing "water is wet!"

Like we did when we got Redknapp in you mean? The "new manager effect" is at best a blip: for a few games, players can raise their games as they seek to impress the new guy; but in the longer run, players and teams play to their intrinsic abilities, and it takes months and money for a good new manager to change a dysfunctional team and a losing mindset. More interestingly, Roeder is just the sort of veteran manager, with plenty of Prem & CCC experience, that the "Poortvliet out" crowd keep suggesting would make all the difference for us. Interesting how these experienced "saviour" types, the likes of Billy Davies and Ian Dowie and Alan Pardew, keep getting fired by other clubs for failing, eh? And yet there are still folks saying that a manager like that would solve our problems. Can't they see that these managers fail as often, or rather more often, than they succeed? That in the end, a manager is only as good as the players and set up he has to wok with? That under our circumstances -- no money, and forced to play kids and veteran cast-offs -- no-one, however experienced or inexperienced, is likely to do much better than the manager we have, and that -- a possible "new manager effect" blip of a game or two aside -- we are better off with stability and keeping a steady ship?

According to that Wikipedia article we have signed him on loan for the rest of the season, with an option to buy if we manage to stay in the CCC. Tall, very experienced defender, with many years of playing in the Dutch Eredivisie: could be an excellent signing if true, what with Pearce & Cork gone and Thomas & Svensson so rarely available. Of course, the last Dutch defender who was supposedly signed by us -- Ruud Knol -- never did actually show up here, so this may be just some smoke-blowing.

Right, so we are indeed worse in goals scored than in goals allowed. Now consider Burnley: 17th in goals allowed at 35, only five fewer than us; 3rd in goals scored at 40; and they sit in 5th position well in the promotion hunt. Doesn't that tell you that scoring more goals than we have would do more for us than allowing fewer? Only one team in the CCC, the woeful Doncaster Rovers, have scored fewer than us; and we are not just low in goals scored, we are way behind most other teams. If we had managed on average one more goal every other game (i.e. 0.5 goals per game more) we'd have 13 more goals, giving us 35 goals scored, putting us solidly in the middle pack in goals scored and very likely around mid-table in points too, by turning some draws into wins and some losses into draws. You might say that's an unrealistic target, but I don't think it is when you look at the number of chances created, in terms of shots pergame. It just requires better finishing. I don't pretend to know why, other than inexperience and lack of confidence, our strikers and midfielders don't convert a higher percentage of their chances into goals. But I do say that goalscoring is the real problem, rather than defence. I'll also say that those who slag off McGoldrick and praise Lallana need to look at their respective scoring records a moment: nothing against Lallana, an excellent and very promising player; but until he learns where exactly the goal is and how to direct his shots towards the goal rather than the stands, talk about a Prem team buying him for real money is absurd. In other words, it isn't just one player, it's all of our strikers and midfielders, including one or two highly touted loanee strikers like Pekhart, who seem to have forgotten the classic art of putting ball in goal.Until someone on the team figures out how to score reasonably regularly, we will continue to draw games we could win, and lose games we could draw or win, and struggle in or around the relegation zone. And btw, don't think the team's abysmal goalscoring record doesn't negatively affect the defence too: it's damned stressful going out every game knowing you have to keep a clean sheet to stand a chance of a point!

I'd have a lot more respect for Skacel's words if he had come anywhere close to showing the kind of form he had with Hearts in playing for us: but he never has, not even when he first came here. A few flashes of it here and there, but let's face it, he has been an inconsistent disappointment. And what do big name players who fail to live up to exp[ectations do? They ***** and moan about the club, the manager, the system, anything to suggest hat it isn't their fault. And they push for a move away. No surprise to see Skacel saying what hwe is saying. Nor does it give any useful insight into the team's problems. Why not cite Surmans positive outlook instead? Which is right, Surman wanting to stay or Skacel wanting to go? Why not cite Alex Ferguson's characterisation of us as a good team going through hard times, but doing the right thing in playing our youngsters and playing them the right way? Franky, Skacel is a disloyal jerk for shooting his mouth off the way he has ...

Truth to tell, our defense has not been the main problem this season: we have conceded too many goals, sure, but several teams, including teams above us currently, have conceded more, and we are not far off teams significantly higher in the table in this regard: Derby, Sheffield Wednesday, even Burnley. Surely everyone can see that the problem lies at the other end of the pitch: we don't score anywhere near enough goals! Conceding one or two goals a game, as we do, would not be disastrous if we only scored one or two, but we don't. More so than new or more experienced defenders, we need a goalscorer. Looking at the stats for our games, it is depressing to see in game after game that we have lots of shots, but few of them are on target and scarcely any actually go in and score. Why is that? McGoldrick, for example, used to score for fun in the youth and rerserve teams, at around a goal a game clip, so he obviously knows where the goal is; and it's not as if he doesn't get any shots, any scoring opportunities. So why does he keep missing? Must be a confidence thing. What one wouldn't give to see Marlon Harewood here, as a very implausible rumour on this board suggested, or even to see Rasiak back: a limited player, certainly, but at least he scored goals! I guess we can only hope that Saga gets some playing time and discovers his scoring touch. Because with just a bit more in the scoring department, there is no reason why we can't move up into mid-table, despite what the gloom and doomers on this board think.

Oh, so that's the problem! those 16 men at each game, plus the manager, are not football players and a football manager!! Now I see why things have gone wrong! I just wonder how it is that the FA allows non-football players and a non-football manager to play a part in the game: please do enlighten us all on that point. You illustrate exactly why those who are either Lowe-neutral, like myself, or pro-Lowe (not sure who that might be) cannot take you Lowe-loathers seriously: total lack of any sense of perspective, making you say the most absurd nonsense imaginable. Before you spout such crap, you might want to reflect that Lowe has had as manager such men as Glen Hoddle, Gordon Strachan, Harry Redknapp, and George Burley who -- whatever one may think of them -- are certainly football managers, as indeed is the man currently managing the team. As to his knowlewdge of players, I have no idea what is true or untrue about all the rumours that get floated, but I note that some people have in the past asserted very positively that Lowe was the man who insisted on signing Niemi, Crouch, and Kenwyne Jones over his managers' doubts -- which if true would indicate that he can spot a decent player. Of course, rumour also makes him responsible for signing some failures, which -- if true -- would make him no different than any other signer of footballers: some work out, some don't. As to knowing nothing about the game, though: he's been involved, deeply involved in football for what, 8 or 10 years now, depending what you count: he must be the world's stupidest man if he has not learned a great deal about football before now. You people talk as if he's still the hockey-loving money man who originally took over the club all those years ago: he isn't. He may not be the man you want in charge of the club, or I want in charge of the club for that matter: but irrational hatred will always prevent you making a worthwhile case for his removal. And frankly, at present, the only alternatives I see are as bad or worse, because the likes of Crouch or Corbett don't give any sense of knowing what to do or how to do it, to the non-partisan mind at least. And I don't see anyone else plausibly ready to step up and take charge.